Talk:Mammal/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

General comments
This is a fine article and I have few general comments. The writing is exceptionally clear, with fine expositions of some technical subjects, such as "Evolution from amniotes".

On the whole I'm not keen on multiple images for the lead, but the fully-linked array of well-chosen example mammals is interesting and engaging, and might be a model for other "group" articles.

The illustrated cladogram in "Molecular classification" is a model of helpful presentation of technical detail. (I'd love to see part of it in Marine mammal.)

I note the occasional use of "don't" and "can't" in the article. Personally I think these are best avoided, but they, um, don't seem to be problematic in the context.

Specific comments

 * "it [Simpson's] remained the closest thing to an official classification of mammals." - is a date missing here, or do you mean "remains"? I think one or the other necessary to make sense of the sentence.
 * I personally didn't write that but I think it refers to the Mckenna/Bell classification  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've changed it to "-s" accordingly.


 * In the list, whales and ungulates are grouped in the Eparctocyona, but in the cladogram, it's the Cetartiodactyla. What is the relationship of these two clades? Perhaps the two lists could be more closely aligned, or the differences explained.
 * According to the McKenna/Bell classification, it's Eparctocyona; according to molecular data, it's Cetartiodactyla. That's why they're placed in their respected subsections, and they should remain separate to avoid confusion  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Gosh what a nightmare. The article is (therefore) fine, but many other articles are highly confusing on the matter.

(It's a shame that Tikitherium is a redlink, but not an issue for this review.)


 * Could the image caption for Juramaia have an age please.
 * added  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The caption and body text starting "Color can be a form of sexual dimorphism..." might be better worded "Sexual dimorphism can involve color differences..." (twice)
 * The section the image references focuses specifically on coat color, so I think coat color should remain the subject instead of sexual dimorphism  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, it makes for tortured English.


 * Coat color can also vary summer to winter.
 * already there?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Only half. I said "seasonal color change" for the snowshoe hare, which was (obliquely) mentioned.


 * The paragraph about coat color genetics seems weaker than the rest, detracting from the account. Perhaps it can be condensed?
 * I didn't do much but is it good now?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Already better.


 * "Another mechanism for coat color variation is physiological response purposes" doesn't read well. Perhaps "...is selection for physiological response"?
 * fixed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The quagga caption should include the date of extinction (19th century).
 * I put the date when the pictures were taken  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we're all done. This is a fine article and I'm happy to award it GA status. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * how do you think the article will stand up at FAC?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly think it's of a good standard. It's a largish article on a 'big' subject that many people may have opinions on, so it could be a substantial push. It has no 'relation with humans' section, which some might consider necessary, it's a matter of opinion. I'd suggest a peer review and a careful polish. Given its size, you might want to put together a small team to take it through. As for how it will stand up, that's in the lap of the gods. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)